from the urls-we-dug-up dept

There's no shortage of new man-made materials being developed, and they come in all different shapes, sizes and purposes. Sometimes it's about making something old in a new way, or giving something common an extremely uncommon property — or just producing something in previously unimaginable quantities. Here are some new developments from the world of synthetics.

from the system-works! dept

We've previously discussed how the lack of IP protection in the fashion industry really hasn't kept many designers from making tons of money, despite maximalists' protests to the contrary. The larger issue seems to be counterfeit goods, rather than anyone passing off someone else's creation as their own, and even that has its own stimulatory effect. But there will always be those that try to assert control over aspects of the design process, because trying to control the end product gets you nowhere.

Design Collection Inc., a "textile and garment resource," has filed a fistful of lawsuits alleging that a multitude of clothing retailers have ripped off its copyrighted horizontal stripe pattern. The latest filings target a dozen or so retailers, as well as a number of Does for allegedly infringing on this:

It takes a seriously creative eye to view these as infringing. Take any garment with horizontal stripes of varying widths and shades and hold it next to another one and you're bound to see some similarities. The closeup photos don't really clarify much. If anything, they seem to indicate there are more differences than similarities. The top one's pattern seems close until you see the entire end product, at which point the comparison falls apart. The lower photo has even fewer similarities in the closeup, never mind the overall photo that shows us only part of the entire product.

And so on it goes. Design Collection has sued clothing retailers over a few different patterns (the stripes surfacing most often) going all the way back to 2011, when ironically enough, it was sued by United Fabrics International for allegedly ripping off some of UFI's designs. (That UFI's designs are protected under copyright is itself a bit of a joke, considering most are generic floral patterns or animal prints.)

While this may be part of the fashion world where copyright protection really doesn't exist, designers can copyright patterns like Design Collection has done here. The copyright office, unlike the USPTO, doesn't make any determination as to whether the submission deserves protection. If you register it, it's yours and you can do what you want with it, like "license it" (read: sell bolts of fabric -- you can't actually "license" fabric) to apparel companies or, you know, drag them to court and make them point out how their irregular stripes are significantly different from your irregular stripes.

Some of this ridiculousness (copyright fights over patterns) has previously surfaced in odd places, like quilting… and origami. Recognizable patterns would normally fall under the purview of trademark (think Louis Vuitton's infamous "LV"), so seeing something as generic as stripes being the center of a copyright lawsuit is something of an anomaly.

Design Collection may have a valid claim here, but I'm not seeing it. The tendency of anything with stripes of varying widths and colors to resemble something else equally as randomized pattern-wise would seem to indicate that the "design" isn't original enough to warrant protection. But a copyright isn't a trademark, so that bar may never need to be approached, much less surmounted.

Put a skeptical enough mind to it and these lawsuits look more like an aggrieved company poring through clothing companies' offerings until it can find something to use to punish them for choosing a different supplier. Take a look at the wording used in the filings:

Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants, and each of them, had access to Subject Design including, without limitation, through (a) access to Plaintiff’s showroom and/or design library; (b) access to illegally distributed copies of the Subject Design by third-party vendors and/or DOE Defendants, including without limitation international and/or overseas converters and printing mills; (c) access to Plaintiff’s strike-offs and samples, and (d) garments manufactured and sold to the public bearing fabric lawfully printed with Subject Design by Plaintiff for its customers.

Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that one or more of the Defendants manufactures garments and/or is a garment vendor. Plaintiff is further informed and believes and thereon alleges that said Defendant(s) has an ongoing business relationship with Defendant retailers, and each of them, and supplied garments to said retailers, which garments infringed Subject Design in that said garments were composed of fabric which featured an unauthorized print design(s) that were identical or substantially similar to Subject Design, or were an illegal modification thereof.

The first paragraph entertains global conspiracy theories while the second alleges "illegal modifications" to its designs. The first is going to be awfully hard to prove and the latter may invite unwanted discussion about non-infringing derivative works.

All in all, this seems to be a case of really really wanting to see infringement where none exists and hoping the defendants will be happier to settle rather than try to defend themselves from a variety of claims that might prove difficult to disprove.

from the what? dept

Two years ago, Techdirt wrote about the major report "Media Piracy in Emerging Economies", which explored how media and software piracy in emerging countries is largely a question of economics: people and companies there simply cannot afford Western-style pricing, and resort to alternative sourcing. That hasn't stopped media and computer companies from demanding that governments around the world should inflict ever-more harsh punishments on their own people.

Against that background, it's perhaps no wonder that people have been looking for new ways to "encourage" foreign users to buy those high-priced goods. Back in 2011, we wrote about one crazy proposal from Microsoft: to make the purchasers of any product from an overseas company that uses unauthorized software liable in the US. Things went quiet after that, and it seemed that this idea had been dropped. No such luck: judging by this story found via @teirdes, it's back, albeit in a modified form:

California's Attorney General Kamala Harris has filed a lawsuit against two Indian and Chinese apparel companies for allegedly using pirated softwares in the production of their cloths for exports and to be sold in the state.

You might wonder what the software used by textile companies in India or China has to do with California; here's the answer according to the Attorney General:

The complaints allege that the foreign apparel makers who have not paid software licensing fees have a significant cost advantage in the low-margin business of apparel manufacturing, shipment and sales.

That seems a pretty big stretch. After all, any savings gained by using pirated copies will be spread over huge numbers of items, and will probably amount to fractions of a cent for each. That difference will be swamped by other factors -- for example, the fact that most fixed and variable costs in India and China are much lower than in California.

American software companies have the right to file copyright infringement lawsuits against Indian companies in India under the Copyright Act, 1957 and they have been exercising this right for the last 10 years with a high rate of success.

If there's a problem with piracy in India, there are Indian laws and courts there that can and do deal with it. Attempting to enforce US laws in India jeopardizes the existing global legal framework that seems to work reasonably well. Does America really want other governments claiming that actions on US soil have broken foreign laws, and should be tried abroad?

For an Indian manufacturer, fighting a lawsuit in Delhi itself can be expensive but defending a lawsuit in California will be at least 20 to 30 times more expensive. It is very likely that just the pre-trial expenses will outstrip the entire cost of the export consignment. The cheaper option is to buy the software licences and this is exactly what the Americans are counting on. They hope to create enough fear amongst Indian exporters that they flock to the closest American software company and stock up on software.

This is exactly how copyright and patent trolls work: make the process of dealing with them so expensive and inconvenient it's simpler and cheaper just to pay them off regardless of whether they are in the right. However, this is not how government lawyers are supposed to operate.

The more significant fear now is that American software companies operating in India will use such lawsuits to extract not only future licence fees but extortionist damages for prior use of software.

If companies start paying up, a precedent will have been created. The model will spread, and the demands for retrospective payments will probably follow, which would lead to considerable capital outflows.

Of course, there is one obvious way to solve this problem: encourage local companies to move to open source software, which can be freely copied as many times as desired. It would be rather ironic if the Attorney General's attempt to put pressure on Indian and Chinese exporters backfired in this way, and resulted in less income for traditional software companies in Silicon Valley, not more.

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

The textile industry seems like a field that's pretty difficult to revolutionize. Sure, there are new fashions every season, but it'd be pretty surprising to see a completely new material displace cotton. Still, there are tons of researchers out there working on ways to improve all kinds of textiles. And it'd be great to see some cool, new materials that could also be worn someday, even if these fabrics never make it into "loooots of t-shirts."